It really doesn’t take much these days to get a news story running. Rupert Murdoch responds positively to a tweet saying “page 3 is so last century“, and almost instantly there’s about half a dozen reports up on the Guardian website debating exactly what it means.

I’ll believe the end of page 3 when I see it.

Those against it really can’t have it both ways. Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett, editor of the Vagenda blog, writes that her problem with page 3 is not the nudity but the commodification and objectification of the female body. That’s fine and is also my secondary objection, yet if the issue isn’t the nudity then why are there not such long running campaigns against the Daily Mail’s Femail pages, and the “sidebar of shame“?

Page 3 exists because of the cooperation of women, not all of whom are either brainless or in it purely for the money. By comparison, the tabloids as a whole rely on the paparazzi effectively stalking celebrities and the almost famous to fill their pages where there is no such permission or exchange of money, except between the paper and the photo agency.

If anything these stories are often far more leery than page 3 now is, or indeed, if the celeb is not deemed to be looking their best, far more likely to have an effect on those who worry about their own body image. True, page 3 is unique in that it has such a cachet in the public imagination, and can be used by giggling adolescents to particularly revolting effect, but let’s not go into such ridiculous exaggeration as “lascivious drool”, as though some men go into Pavlovian reveries at the mere sight of a printed boob, at least in public at any rate.

If anything, as Karen Mason’s original tweet can also be read, page 3 is last century in that really the whole debate about objectification and the pornification of culture has moved on.

A few years back we were worrying about the rise of Nuts and Zoo, and the often disgustingly sexist content of lads’ mags, whereas now even that seems old hat when “revenge porn” sites have entered the news.

Where once it was hip-hop videos that had an abundance of flesh on display, now the utterly mainstream likes of Rihanna and Nicki Minaj perform in costumes which can’t really be described in any real sense as clothing. At the same time, porn might be going through a transition period where it’s unclear what its end business model will be, yet the material itself has never been so easily available, with all that entails, the possible effects unknown.

Cosslett is right in saying it’s fundamentally “about a demeaning and disrespectful attitude to women”, yet the fact is as, she admits, both “men and women … cynically manipulate young women’s bodies for commercial profit”.

If page 3 were to disappear tomorrow then its effect would barely be measurable. The problem modern feminism has to face is that it’s women as much as men who are behind the shift in culture, and at the moment it doesn’t have a proper answer as to what this means and how it can be fought against.

Those against it really can’t have it both ways. Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett, editor of the Vagenda blog, writes that her problem with page 3 is not the nudity but the commodification and objectification of the female body.

Take away the nudity and how does the commodification and objectification of the female body differ from the commodificatiin and objectification of anyone employed in manual labour and the performing arts?

Passing over, for the moment, the fact that the editor of a blog named after female genitals is ‘concerned’ that women are objectified as body parts (there’s obviously good synecdoche and bad synecdoche) denying women the choice of career is infantilising and objectifying to a greater degree.

Women on page 3 might be partly objectified but they are still active agents; denying them agency is paternalistic and patriarchal – even if the ‘patriarch’ is a woman in metaphorical drag.

Where once it was hip-hop videos that had an abundance of flesh on display, now the utterly mainstream likes of Rihanna and Nicki Minaj perform in costumes which can’t really be described in any real sense as clothing.

The objection to the hip-hop videos was that bikini-clad women were a backdrop to male performers not stars in their own right.

Rihanna and Nicki Minaj are the main attraction in their videos – in both senses of the phrase.

Shatterface: and surely that’s even more troubling? I understand all the arguments about it being about exploiting men and the women being in control, but to me the sight of a singer wearing next to nothing while performing is just depressing.

@8 Septicisle: “to me the sight of a singer wearing next to nothing while performing is just depressing.”

Well I’m sorry to hear that. Do you mean that you find the mere sight of a near naked body depressing? Or just near naked singers? Or perhaps only near naked female singers? What about music videos of singers surrounded by near naked dancers?

Maybe The Sun is making a serious attempt to appeal to female readership and drop it’s blokey image. For those males who might miss it, they could go along to the various museums and art galleries which show far more nudity than any of the national rags.

I don’t think that Page 3 debate should focus on nudity, it is about consistency. If magazines like Nuts have to be covered up because they have pictures of breasts then why doesn’t the Sun and other tabloids? These papers are often delivered by children on their paper rounds and if the nudity in mags are considered unacceptable for kids then the same restrictions should apply.

For the record I find covering and top-shelfing nudey mags acceptable.

Cosslett is right in saying it’s fundamentally “about a demeaning and disrespectful attitude to women”, yet the fact is as, she admits, both “men and women … cynically manipulate young women’s bodies for commercial profit”.

And to an ever increasing extent men’s too, the sidebar of shame wasn’t exactly shy of printing pics of James Corden on holiday and pointing out that he was a fat bloke in swimwear, and that was something he ought to have been ashamed about, and JLS and 1D are hardly not flaunting their bodies to shift CD’s and downloads.

The problem feminists are facing is that what was thought was the problem (a process of patriarchy) is turning out to be a symptom of something else (a process of capitalism/corporatism), and as they tackle the perceived problem what has started occurring is that things have begun equalling out a bit gender-wise without the exploitation actually reducing any. One wonders where the commodification of our bodies mightend.

Rincewind: Don’t be facetious. My point, as much as I had one, was that on the whole there isn’t a equivalence between male and female performers when it comes to flesh bearing. There might be the odd male singer who bares his chest for videos/live performances, but on the whole the likes of JLS/Bieber/One Direction don’t. You don’t have to be a puritan or a radical feminist (and I’m certainly neither) to find the direction mainstream pop ala Rihanna/Minaj has taken just a little icky.

The Sun website has already adopted the Mail model with its own “sidebar to shame.” The link to the Page 3 website, once a core part of the brand, is now quite difficult to find (um…not that I was trying to or anything). In the same way, the print version Page 3 will quietly wither on the vine (they already drop it on Saturdays). The question is, will two rival Daily Mails be any improvement?

Like it or not, under capitalism the female body is obviously a commodity.

The female body is a vital component of the heterosexual male sex drive and, as such, was a “commodity” before capitalism was ever thought of. Indeed, this comments thread seems to be stuck in amber- to our children, brought up with open sexuality and internet porn, page 3, or even nuts magazine, seem as quaint as did the Venus de Milo to a 20th century audience.

Unfortunately for all feminists and their acolytes, the standard male response to sight of a nude female(blood engorging the penis)is a component of our nature and is immutable. They, or you, can rail against it all you like but, ultimately,it is God’s politically incorrect joke.

I’ll take your point on Bieber, he’s not exactly my area of expertise. As for JLS and 1D, it’s true there’s plenty of pictures of them shirtless but not performing, which is what I said, but not many of them going topless while performing. Just as there’s plenty of pictures of countless other pop stars with few clothes on on holiday etc.

“now the utterly mainstream likes of Rihanna and Nicki Minaj perform in costumes which can’t really be described in any real sense as clothing.”
-Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells

I agree with Shatterface on this, and would like to know why using a labourer’s brain and muscles, or an office worker’s brain and typing fingers, doesn’t count as “cynically manipulating bodies for commercial profit”. Frankly this article seems to be written on the assumption that the reader has a hang-up on sex and therefore sees it as incomparable to other parts of life, with a side helping of it being “inherently dirty”.

As for your purported change in “culture”, I suspect that if porn is getting more fetishy, that’s more to do with the existence of the internet. More broadly speaking – sexy people on TV and such – I’d like to know why we’re expected to see sexual liberation as automatically bad.

@21 While I’m sure the boybands do have their share of adult fans they are largely aimed at a teenybopper marker, whereas Rihanna and Nicki Minaj are more ‘young adult’ aimed. That could well be the source of the disparity. It’s not unusual for say rap stars to perform shirtless, particularly if they’re ripped to fuck.

Chaise: I think you’ve misunderstood me. I was quoting Cosslett, not agreeing with her on that point. I have no objection to people choosing to do whatever the hell they like with their bodies, as I said when the problem for feminism is that it’s women just as much as men who are responsible. I also wasn’t saying that the change in culture is definitely for the worse, rather that surely we’ve moved beyond page 3 being worth uniquely campaigning against. As for whether sexual liberation is automatically bad, that’s a whole different debate but again, I don’t think I even suggested here that it was, personal feelings on the aesthetics of pop stars aside.

Fair enough – I’d assumed you quoted that statement because you agree with it. I certainly agree that treating Page 3 as a standalone issue is odd. Even if you were specifically worried about nudity in the papers, the Star would be a better target (I’m discounting the Sport as I think that’s into the porn category). I think it’s more that Page 3 has become the poster child for a sort of everyday, cheery eroticism.